Fort Worth weekly gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1887-04-08
Meek1y Oazette.
HEW TO THE LINE.

| In an interview with THE GAZETTE
Tuesday morning, Hon. Barnett Gibbs
said:
We are face to face now with live issue,
uuon both sides of which much can be said,
and 1t is a frsl-class political issue and must
be handled as such, let results be what they
will Prohibition /. either contrary to the fun
damental principles Of free government or 1t is
rot? Prohibition will be either beneficial or
injurious to the commercial and material in
terests of Texas or 1t will not, and the people
want to know which, and expect to hear from
their leaders how 1t is.
1t doesn't follow that because this amend
ment is labeled a prohibition amendment
that It viii really prohibit, or is the best that
could be submitted, and the conservative peo-
pie will want the politicians to discuss its
merits and probable effects.
These are sensible words timely spoken,
Mr.. Gibbs. The question to be decided
next August by the people of Texas pre-
sents Itself for consideration in many as
poets: as a moral, as a sumptuary, as g
political, as an economic and as poll
cial question. The vote of Texas on pro-
hfbition will, in its influence, extend be-
yond the day Of election and past the
! boundary lines of the state, and, because
of this, a solemn sense of duty should
rest upon every man who goes to the
polls with ballot to aid in the decision.
The public interests and the people de-
mand that prohibition shall be discussed
as political (not partisan), as an eco
nomic and as policial question. All
other aspects of It discovered by the sub
mission of the amendment should be
eliminated.
The Prohibitionists will not meet the
popular demand if they declaim of the
redness OF the wine and the bite of the
adder; if they picture the woes of the
drunksrd's family and the wretchedness
of his nome; if they quote from the Bible
that tae drunkard shall have his part in
thai lake which burneth with fire; if they
pCrtray intellect bestialized, character
vitiated, reputation blasted, reason de-
throned, wealth squandered and lives
wrecked. All these arguments in favor
of temperance are for the home, the
church and the lodge, and, used on the
stump, could only tend to convert the
discussion of this proposed revolution in
law into q moral and religious crusade
with the inevitable result of bad blood
and dangerous excitement. Fanatics can
best serve the state and their own cause
by absolute silence in this canvass; it is
such men as these who perVert that cause
and make it an assault on conscience,
which invariably provokes resistance to
the death, if needs be.
The tl-Prohibitionists will make no
progress by seeking to identify the Pro
hibition canvass with efforts to disrupt
the Democracy; voters are not blind to
the facts that Republicans are to be
found among the opponents as well as
among the advocates of prohibition; that
a great body of citizens in certain sec
tions of the state, who are largely Repub-
lican, hate prohibition as the devil does
holy water; that the amendment was pc
titioned for by Democrats, was submitted
by a Democratic Legislature, and was
declared non-partisan by a Democratic
state convention. They will influence no
voter by declaring that prohibition does
not prohibit; that state prohibition sig
nifes ruin to commercial interests and
denial of the privilege of drinking, while
asserting that it does not diminish the
sale of whisky, but increases it.
Prohibitionists and anti-Prohibitionists
should both hew to the line and face this
live issue, as Mr.. Gibbs says, with argu-
ments addressed to these propositions
l. Does prohibition exact of the indi-
viduaI undue concession of that personal
liberty, something of which all must
yield for the public and, therefore, for
the private good?
If this proposition be established in the
affirmative; if prohibition means unwar-
ranted restriction of personal liberty,
fraternalism and union of church and
state, then every man owes it as a SOL
emn duty to religion, to his family and to
his country to vote against the amend
ment. Every man who loves liberty
should prefer the ills described in the
temperance tracts to those of which he
knows nothing outside the history which
tells of intolerance, of bigotry, Of perse-
cution, of spoliation, of cruelty, of muir
der, and of hypocrisy.
If the fundamental proposition be es-
tabished in the negative, then the dis
cussion should include the important but
less vital questions:
Is prohibition,i is this revolution in law,
necessary?
Is prohibition the best form of regula-
ton of the traffic?
Will prohibition promote or retard the
material advancement of the state?
Mr.. Gibbs he's spoken the word in sea-
son, and the people will demand that he
exempIify his teaching.
That party will win in this contest
which makes no mistakes. It will be u
mistake for Prohibitionists to convert the
canvass into moral or religious crusade,
and it will be a mistake for the anti-Pro-
hibitionists to convert it into one of mis-
representations and trivialities, or to seek
to inject into the discussion extraneous
! issues